So you're talking about keeping the districts (as winner take all) and just allowing candidates to run in more than 1 of them at a time?

That's quite different than a state-wide proportional system.

No, districts are gone, "seats" means number of votes in the House, you can't cast a fractional vote in the House so the "seats" must be given out whole, after everyone has been given the "seats" they won entirely the remaining "seats" are given to those with the largest remaining fractions.

Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0

Neither of us can know that, but, in general, support for Congressmen is highly localized.

That would change in this system since voters would be allowed to consider candidates closer to their ideology from outside their area.

Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0

Similarly, compare the favorability ratings for individual Congressmen with the favorability rating of Congress as a whole.

But Congress as a whole isn't the issue, the popularity of specific Congressmen outside their district is what is relevant, unfortunately nobody usually takes that kind of poll in our current system

Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0

Ron won 12% in 2012 among TX GOP primary voters.

Throw democrats and general election GOP voters into the mix (both less Ron-friendly), and it would have been less than half that, I imagine.

You are leaving independents and 3rd party voters out of the equation.

Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0

This doesn't really matter, though, the overall point is that the effect of your proposed changes are situation-specific.

It's like gerrymandering; those lines help Party X now, but down the road they might help Party Y.

This is somewhat true if the races are statewide, but if the House was selected in a nationwide vote that wouldn't be the case.

Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Robert Heinlein

Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

Groucho Marx

I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

Linus, from the Peanuts comic

You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

Alexis de Torqueville

Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

No, districts are gone, "seats" means number of votes in the House, you can't cast a fractional vote in the House so the "seats" must be given out whole, after everyone has been given the "seats" they won entirely the remaining "seats" are given to those with the largest remaining fractions.

First, you can have fractional votes: "430.3 For, 4.7 Against, the Ayes have it."

Fractional voting isn't the issue, the issue would be having a gigantic number of House members.

That aside, I'm confused by the underlined.

Say there are five candidates with popular vote totals as follows:

A: 50.54%
B: 18.3%
C: 15.9%
D: 14.5%
E: 0.76%

How many seats does each candidate get?

That would change in this system since voters would be allowed to consider candidates closer to their ideology from outside their area.

That doesn't mean it would change to the advantage of libertarian candidates.

The socialist who's terribly popular in his own district, but has no name recognition elsewhere, might make similar gains.

But Congress as a whole isn't the issue, the popularity of specific Congressmen outside their district is what is relevant, unfortunately nobody usually takes that kind of poll in our current system

The huge gap between the Congress-wide and individual Congressmen polls shows that people like their own far more than they like the others.

You are leaving independents and 3rd party voters out of the equation.

If you'd like to present evidence for a different number, feel free. I was just putting up a number arguendo, and, as I said, it's beside the point.

This is somewhat true if the races are statewide, but if the House was selected in a nationwide vote that wouldn't be the case.

First, you can have fractional votes: "430.3 For, 4.7 Against, the Ayes have it."

Fractional voting isn't the issue, the issue would be having a gigantic number of House members.

That aside, I'm confused by the underlined.

Say there are five candidates with popular vote totals as follows:

A: 50.54%
B: 18.3%
C: 15.9%
D: 14.5%
E: 0.76%

How many seats does each candidate get?

If we assume 100 seats are up for grabs then in the first round the results would be:

A: 50
B: 18
C: 15
D: 14
E: 0

That would leave 3 seats which would be given out as follows:
C: 1
E: 1
A: 1

For a total of:
A: 51
B: 18
C: 16
D: 14
E: 1

Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0

That doesn't mean it would change to the advantage of libertarian candidates.

The socialist who's terribly popular in his own district, but has no name recognition elsewhere, might make similar gains.

It would benefit any group that is underrepresented under the current system.

Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0

The huge gap between the Congress-wide and individual Congressmen polls shows that people like their own far more than they like the others.

No it doesn't, those House members who gain national notoriety can be quite popular like Dr. Ron, the institution gets poor marks because it is controlled by the "moderates" of the two party establishment, the local Congressman usually gets high marks because everybody wants to imagine that their Rep is an exception and they were right to vote for him.

Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0

How so?

Because there would be no subdivisions "gerrymandering" the vote, if the LP candidate got about 2% of the vote they would get about 2% of the house seats, with about 400 house seats that would be about 8.

Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Robert Heinlein

Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

Groucho Marx

I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

Linus, from the Peanuts comic

You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

Alexis de Torqueville

Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

If we assume 100 seats are up for grabs then in the first round the results would be:

A: 50
B: 18
C: 15
D: 14
E: 0

That would leave 3 seats which would be given out as follows:
C: 1
E: 1
A: 1

For a total of:
A: 51
B: 18
C: 16
D: 14
E: 1

Gotcha

It would benefit any group that is underrepresented under the current system.

That isn't necessarily true, but even if it were, it wouldn't necessarily help libertarians.

No it doesn't, those House members who gain national notoriety can be quite popular like Dr. Ron, the institution gets poor marks because it is controlled by the "moderates" of the two party establishment, the local Congressman usually gets high marks because everybody wants to imagine that their Rep is an exception and they were right to vote for him.

I'm not going to argue with you about whether reps are more popular in their own districts than elsewhere. This is obvious.

Because there would be no subdivisions "gerrymandering" the vote, if the LP candidate got about 2% of the vote they would get about 2% of the house seats, with about 400 house seats that would be about 8.

Again, it works both ways.

It's quite possible for a minority party/candidate to do better with the gerrymandered subdivisions than without them.

That isn't necessarily true, but even if it were, it wouldn't necessarily help libertarians.

Libertarians are underrepresented in the current system.

Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0

I'm not going to argue with you about whether reps are more popular in their own districts than elsewhere. This is obvious.

The question isn't whether they are it is whether they would be.

Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0

Again, it works both ways.

It's quite possible for a minority party/candidate to do better with the gerrymandered subdivisions than without them.

I gave you mathematical examples of this several posts up.

Libertarians are currently underrepresented, if my system was implemented they would be better represented.
Gerrymandering is controlled by the major parties under the current system, it is constantly used against liberty candidates. (Ask Gunny)
If the races were statewide the "gerrymandering" would be random and permanent, since libertarians tend to be spread out rather than concentrated they wouldn't be likely to benefit much but they would be better off than they are with the major parties in control of gerrymandering, if the races were nationwide they would get very close to their just representation.

Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Robert Heinlein

Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

Groucho Marx

I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

Linus, from the Peanuts comic

You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

Alexis de Torqueville

Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

I don't know that that's true; I do know that liberty is very unpopular.

The LP itself gets at least 2% of the vote regularly, even if we ignore all the Independents, Republicans and Democrats that would vote for them if they were able to show better electoral results they should have about 8 House seats, currently they have none.

Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Robert Heinlein

Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

Groucho Marx

I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

Linus, from the Peanuts comic

You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

Alexis de Torqueville

Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

The LP itself gets at least 2% of the vote regularly, even if we ignore all the Independents, Republicans and Democrats that would vote for them if they were able to show better electoral results they should have about 8 House seats, currently they have none.

Let's just suppose that's true.

What would really change, if the LP went from 0 to 8 seats?

I mean, that's all well and good, but it's not going to actually affect government behavior, is it?

I mean, that's all well and good, but it's not going to actually affect government behavior, is it?

It might on close votes, it also would give the public the idea that the LP was a viable party, the "wasted vote" argument would disappear and people would start to listen.
They might end up with quite a few seats.

Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Robert Heinlein

Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

Groucho Marx

I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

Linus, from the Peanuts comic

You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

Alexis de Torqueville

Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

It might on close votes, it also would give the public the idea that the LP was a viable party, the "wasted vote" argument would disappear and people would start to listen.

They might end up with quite a few seats.

Color me skeptical.

By the way, I'm sure you know that this (nation-wide proportional voting) is more or less how it works in most of the rest of the world.

In Europe, for instance, there is an amusing number of minority parties with one or two seats in parliament.

Does that system seem to be yielding significantly different results?

People complain (understandably) about the winner-take-all nature of our system, but the coalition building process that the rest of the world employs ends up with the same thing, more or less (you get to be part of the government, if only you abandon all principle and compromise with your enemies, in some milquetoast middle).

By the way, I'm sure you know that this (nation-wide proportional voting) is more or less how it works in most of the rest of the world.

In Europe, for instance, there is an amusing number of minority parties with one or two seats in parliament.

Does that system seem to be yielding significantly different results?

Compared to us they do get better representation of their worse political cultures and they are able have political revolutions more often.
But they still have to get one person for every seat and their party list system makes party bosses more important instead of less, so my system would be better than theirs.

Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Robert Heinlein

Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

Groucho Marx

I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

Linus, from the Peanuts comic

You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

Alexis de Torqueville

Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

Not usually, there isn't much of a libertarian movement in Europe, but the ability to have "a little revolution now and then" is a healthy thing, we would be in better shape if the "major" parties didn't have as secure a monopoly even if we wouldn't have a libertarian paradise.

Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Robert Heinlein

Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

Groucho Marx

I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

Linus, from the Peanuts comic

You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

Alexis de Torqueville

Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

Not usually, there isn't much of a libertarian movement in Europe, but the ability to have "a little revolution now and then" is a healthy thing, we would be in better shape if the "major" parties didn't have as secure a monopoly even if we wouldn't have a libertarian paradise.

In the context of this conversation, I appreciate what you mean, but that's a terrible saying.

...sorry Jefferson, you oughtn't to have read Rousseau.

I'd be hard pressed to find a revolution that improved things (the American, at a wash, may be the best); most have been orgies of destruction.